1992 (2) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of printed cartons under Central Excise Tariff
- Exemption under Notification No. 279/82 and Notification No. 48/83
- Test report discrepancy and demand of duty
- Request for retest and time limit under Rule 56(4)
- Violation of principles of natural justice by not furnishing test report

Analysis:

The case involves an appeal against an order by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay regarding the classification of printed cartons under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 279/82 and Notification No. 48/83. The Deputy Chief Chemist's report stated that the cartons were made of Grey Board, leading to a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 13,473.25. The appellants contested the demand, citing the non-furnishing of the test report and requested a retest. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, and the appeal to the Collector (Appeals) was rejected.

The appellants argued that the Deputy Chief Chemist did not mention Grey Board in the earlier report and that the request for the test report was within the stipulated time limit of Rule 56(4). They contended that the delay in issuing the show cause notice prevented them from seeking a retest. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the demand, stating that the test report was included in the show cause notice and the request for retest was beyond the prescribed period.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the failure to provide a copy of the test report promptly denied the appellants the opportunity for a retest within the stipulated time. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that non-disclosure of the test report violated principles of natural justice. Relying on the precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the Department's failure to furnish the test report promptly was a violation of natural justice.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief. The case highlights the importance of timely disclosure of crucial documents to ensure a fair opportunity for the parties involved and uphold principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.